Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

The online discussions have been doing pretty badly already with everyone using the same terminology, and they do little to help general knowledge anyhow.

Josh, your additions to these discussions help "settle the muddy water" as far as I'm concerned. I appreciate your clarity and scholarship.

The path that Ellis has been on for some time now is something that very few senior budo people would attempt and make "public" I think. Kudos to him for being a "senior student" and surely a fine leader and example.

In my view, as long as I'm alive I'll continue the search. Someone recently said to me, "I can't really pay attention to something unless I'm really interested it it." That is amazing to me... I don't know anyone that's smart enough to know in advance what we should be giving attention to. Ellis' example of widening his view is a good lesson for us all. I suspect that not much escapes your inquiring search either. If enough people keep "widening the view" and being willing to take part in public conversation in ways that are conducive to sharing knowledge instead of "marketing" to the world, learning will continue.

For the past two years or so I don't teach. I leave that to the other senior instructors at the dojo. My students allow me to try and expand my horizons by allowing me to explore things that interest me and I have good uke that don’t give a thing but allow me to find what I am looking for while maintaining a good center and persistent attack. No cheap shots by anyone. After 40 plus years I am still looking. We should never get so complacent as to not try and move on.

Pretty much the same here, Dennis. I'm lucky to be surrounded by very intense, talented and well-trained people that keep me honest and support me in training. They push me also to keep learning by presenting me with continuing and on-going problems to solve. We were fortunate to have been directed by my seniors to always question and test everything while polishing our fundamentals without buying into any stuff that you had to get "sensitized" to in order for it to work.

I miss training with you and hanging out while we do our seishin tanrin... run away from home when you get a chance and come visit.

To me, it is not important any longer what I do to my opponent, in the sense that I am trying to do something to him such as throw him, off balance, or strike...but more important what I am doing with myself.

If I am doing right by me and moving correctly and working my body correctly...then things simply happen.

Sure, I have to "listen" to my opponent and respond appropriately. But the receptors of listening are in my own body and I have to listen to myself.

Making that switch to stop worrying about what I am doing to him and what I am doing inside myself was key I think.

Kevin,

I think you hit on something pretty major there, though when it comes to BJJ you can be extermely defensive doing that and hold out indefinately, but you still have to initiate something on your opponent to actually submit them.

What you wrote above is a fundamental change in your training mindset when you are drilling with a partner, sparring, or doing funamental exercises.

When you bring the sword into the equation these examples no longer make sense, because they limit "aiki's" usefulness dramatically.

The amount of energy the human body can handle from the blade or point of a katana is close to zero.

The "joining of the energy/spirit" must happen outside of the physical body.

Aiki must be at least as applicable to sword-on-sword as it is to empty-handed confrontations.

It is very usefull actually.

Imagine if you can control your opponents body through their sword, that is to say you can disrupt their kamae, take their balance etc via sword on sword contact. This enables you not only to manipulate their center but have control of the center line. Likewise you can cut "through" your opponents sword enabling you to knock away their sword (potentially their balance as well) and keep control of the center line if you both cut at the same time without cutting any "harder."

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

I think what Michael is saying is, all the kokyu in the world is not going to keep a sword from cutting you, but movement will. Further, when using a sword, one doesn't need much force to make it destroy a human body.

Kokyu may very well be the first step in the "Aiki" equation, but it's only the first factor. Calling kokyu all of "Aiki" seems to be a bit limited.

What if you are using kokyu to derive your cutting power? What if your cut is the same as your block?

The online discussions have been doing pretty badly already with everyone using the same terminology, and they do little to help general knowledge anyhow.

Terminology that even in the same language, much less in translation is akin to the term "blackbird" in its lack of useful power of distinction.

That why I decided to go a different route, ground up, working my way into a correct mechanical terminology ( not wihtout diffficulty or controversy, I know) -- but which, despite unfamiliarity to many, whatever ambiguity they may still possess is light years away from that of the traditional terms. All it takes to have a common understanding of the terms is to grasp the empirical physics they describe -- which is equally available in any bookstore, or library to anyone willing to learn it -- be they speakers of English, Mandarin or Japanese...

None of that diminishes the art of employing what they describe -- nor is t necessary in order to do it -- at all. It is, however, necessary to usefully talk about it in closely critical terms that don't ultmately resolve into the regularly scheduled definitional debates...

Terminology that even in the same language, much less in translation is akin to the term "blackbird" in its lack of useful power of distinction.

That why I decided to go a different route, ground up, working my way into a correct mechanical terminology ( not wihtout diffficulty or controversy, I know) -- but which, despite unfamiliarity to many, whatever ambiguity they may still possess is light years away from that of the traditional terms. All it takes to have a common understanding of the terms is to grasp the empirical physics they describe -- which is equally available in any bookstore, or library to anyone willing to learn it -- be they speakers of English, Mandarin or Japanese...

None of that diminishes the art of employing what they describe -- nor is t necessary in order to do it -- at all. It is, however, necessary to usefully talk about it in closely critical terms that don't ultmately resolve into the regularly scheduled definitional debates...

I think you hit on something pretty major there, though when it comes to BJJ you can be extermely defensive doing that and hold out indefinately, but you still have to initiate something on your opponent to actually submit them.

What you wrote above is a fundamental change in your training mindset when you are drilling with a partner, sparring, or doing funamental exercises.

Absolutely Hunter. Ironically enough, BJJ has caused me to be more "defensive" and showed me the way to this paradigm shift like no other art. It has shown me the "room" that is available to "hold out' and to "listen".

It has allowed me, I think, to choose the time when I want to go offensive.

In the past, I would go offensive exclusively believing that what I did was far, far more important upfront than anything that my opponent did or might do.

Does that mean I "Win" more now that I have made this shift. Nah, I still probably lose at the same percentage that I did before.

But, I think what it has done for me is focus on my training and doing things better, more efficiently. I also think it has led me to making better and more relevant choices.

Still lose alot, but I am losing with more style and finesse I think, less like a spaz, and it takes my opponent much more of an investment to beat me too!

Anyway, I think it is key and fundamental to begin learning this stuff if you ever want to be a "martial artist" with any modicum of skill...regardless of if you consider what you do internal or external.

Imagine if you can control your opponents body through their sword, that is to say you can disrupt their kamae, take their balance etc via sword on sword contact. This enables you not only to manipulate their center but have control of the center line. Likewise you can cut "through" your opponents sword enabling you to knock away their sword (potentially their balance as well) and keep control of the center line if you both cut at the same time without cutting any "harder."

What if you are using kokyu to derive your cutting power? What if your cut is the same as your block?

A. Does Aunkai specifically teach this?

B. Cut as same as a block? Forgive me but I am not sure what you mean by this...We try not to block anything but let folks "cut through" Do you mean cutting as opposed to blocking?

To me, "Aiki" is mostly about what happens before contact. Or even better, done so that there is no contact.

If my "Aiki" is spot on, I would never get into the altercation in the first place. If my "Aiki" was a little worse, I would have to use my intention to drive my attackers away. If it was a little worse then that I would have to use my "Aiki" avoid them touching me. A little worse still, and I'd have to use it to make them fall down, stumble, run into something, or hit each other. And at the very bottom end of good "Aiki" I would make sure by the time we get into contact I am at the perfect angle so that it is impossible for them to apply force to me.

After that we are into the contact range. VERY far from what I would call great or even good "Aiki". Great "Aiki" to me means being so far ahead of your attackers that they can't make physical contact.

To me, "Aiki" is mostly about what happens before contact. Or even better, done so that there is no contact.

If my "Aiki" is spot on, I would never get into the altercation in the first place. If my "Aiki" was a little worse, I would have to use my intention to drive my attackers away. If it was a little worse then that I would have to use my "Aiki" avoid them touching me. A little worse still, and I'd have to use it to make them fall down, stumble, run into something, or hit each other. And at the very bottom end of good "Aiki" I would make sure by the time we get into contact I am at the perfect angle so that it is impossible for them to apply force to me.

After that we are into the contact range. VERY far from what I would call great or even good "Aiki". Great "Aiki" to me means being so far ahead of your attackers that they can't make physical contact.

Chris,
While I think that the "aiki of movement" is important, it seems to me that Aikido has been taught backwards from what it should have been (that includes the way I was taught).

Many Aikido folks have gotten quite good at "avoiding" attacks but have less than no idea how to handle the energy of actual contact. Aikido is the study of connection, yet, because of emphasis on movement, it attracts all the folks who don't really wish to connect.

I think that we should start training from the very earliest stages with static paired exercises that teach proper body mechanics and how to receive and redirect power without the need to move. Then, and only then, should we introduce movement into the training. And then the emphasis should be on how to move and still be able to maintain proper structure so that at the instant of contact, the attacker's structure is broken.

Any attempt to do an Aikido that is missing work on how to receive the energy of an attack and only emphasizes non-contact movement is hollow and lacking in proper content. Additionally, it is only touching on a very small portion of what I would call "aiki". Sure, understanding spacing and timing is important. But anyone attempting to work on an energetic level must understand how to work this stuff in the body. It is that which later allows one to project that out and effect another attacker before the touch happens.

In other words, if you can't move the energy of a powerful attack through your body properly, then you will not be able to do the light touch and even touch less Aikido you are talking about. Most folks who are trying to do Aikido of that nature are simply doing hollow movement.

To me, "Aiki" is mostly about what happens before contact. Or even better, done so that there is no contact.

If my "Aiki" is spot on, I would never get into the altercation in the first place. If my "Aiki" was a little worse, I would have to use my intention to drive my attackers away. If it was a little worse then that I would have to use my "Aiki" avoid them touching me. A little worse still, and I'd have to use it to make them fall down, stumble, run into something, or hit each other. And at the very bottom end of good "Aiki" I would make sure by the time we get into contact I am at the perfect angle so that it is impossible for them to apply force to me.

After that we are into the contact range. VERY far from what I would call great or even good "Aiki". Great "Aiki" to me means being so far ahead of your attackers that they can't make physical contact.

I'll try to respond a bit more in your other thread about video and aiki. For this thread, though, in my view, what you've described above as "aiki" is completely not what I call aiki. You describe timing and angles which, to me, belong in the jujutsu realm. Timing and angles are important, but they aren't aiki.

I think one of the things that Ueshiba didn't seem to teach as much was the concepts of jujutsu, aiki jujutsu, and aiki no jujutsu. There is jujutsu and there is aiki. Jujutsu is the application of timing, angles, and physical body positioning. Aiki is maintaining a structural, centralized equilibrium amidst infinite spirals and doesn't require timing or angles, per se. Jujutsu is about affecting or connecting to another person is some manner. Aiki is about one's own body.

Two very different things. Aiki is how one's body is wired and functions while jujutsu is external stimulus relying upon physical positioning as it relates to space and time.

Or ... my spine is straight in the middle of me. When energy comes in from some point, say my wrist, then I have the appropriate spiraling energy going not only with that energy but also opposite it while maintaining multiple vectors of opposing spirals all around me.

come on now. you dont mean literally? :]

Yeah, literally. There are more spirals than I can keep track of or count (hence the infinite descriptor). As to what I can *do*, no. I have trouble with basic stuff still.

Quote:

Josh Phillipson wrote:

how do you stabilize the hip-to-hip load on the backside of the body? how on earth do you connect strongly across the lower back in foot-to-hand connect? </end rant of delirious questions foamed to mouth>

The more I learn, the harder this stuff gets. When I first started, I thought just getting simple pathways in the body identified and working was hard. I was told you have to do A before B before C and C builds upon B which builds upon A. It's easy to understand the concept but hard to implement into reality.

We laugh and say that our progress is like the snowflake that lands on the tip of the iceberg that is aiki. We can see the tip, we are starting to be part of the tip but we know there's a whole lot underneath that we haven't even been able to do yet.

Quote:

Josh Phillipson wrote:

that is really cool. the hand-to-hand connection sounds like it must be defining for the torso/upperbody. is it?
Josh

Not hand-to-hand per se, but more that both hands are "live" and connected to the body.

The short answer, the aunkai doesn't teach sword waza, this is an application of a principle.

The long answer

Let me preface that I have a kendo/iaido background. In kendo/iaido plenty of people tell you you need to use the hara and legs to power your cuts, but outside of one particular instance, no one has ever provided me with explicit instruction in kendo/iaido on how to develop that understanding. Using what I have learned from the Aunkai and from Mike's seminars I have a much better idea of how to route power from the legs; both muscularly and utilizing "the ground", and what using the center/hara actually means.

The Aunkai uses weapons for training purposes: for example conditioning exercises, wrestling through a bo etc, but it is not a weapons based sparring/kata art where specific waza are learned. That being said if you can figure out the principles of how to unbalance someone on contact as taught by Akuzawa, Mike, Dan, Chen's etc, you will realize that a punch is the same as a kick, which is the same as a throw, which is the same as a cut. It sounds crazy at face value until you put the in time for conditioning.

That is to say the same thing is going on within the body to power whatever waza you choose, albet there are different gradiations (for example strictly using an alignment based approach ala structure, to using breath power derived and anything inbetween the two). Therefore, strictly from a power generation standpoint whatever the hand/arm/leg is doing that is making contact with the other person is less important that what is going on within the body. That is why I stated that Kevin was on to something. The end result is that instead of attacking or effecting the person's limbs, you connect through their limbs to manipulate their center of gravity as thought it was a part of your own body.

Going back to what I said above about a punch being the same as a cut, something like push hands or grabbing a judo gi is no different than sword on sword contact. In fact there is a pre-war kendo manual which states that judo and kendo are two sides of the same coin. You feel what the other person is doing through the sword much the same as how you feel what their hands are doing when your hands are touching. You can feel where they are sourcing their power, but if you can source your power from somewhere other than the arms, not only it is much harder to read but it is signifigantly stronger.

Quote:

B. Cut as same as a block? Forgive me but I am not sure what you mean by this...We try not to block anything but let folks "cut through" Do you mean cutting as opposed to blocking?

William Hazen

Speaking from a kendo waza standpoint, kendo orthodoxy teaches that cutting is preferential to blocking, that is to say if you have time to block, you could have cut instead. Likewise only one person can have control of the center line at any given time.

Now to bring in the internal stuff. Getting hit in the wrist/head by an internally powered cut doesn't hurt (or I should say doesn't hurt in the same way), rather it goes through the part of the body being hit and has the potential to unbalance you.

When I am referring to cutting through the person's sword, this can mean several things:

The cut can be a block. If my opponent is cutting at the same time as me, because I have a "stronger" cut my cut connects my own center to my opponents and unbalances him by knocking his sword and arms alway leaving his head/wrist etc completely open. This is not a matter of knocking your opponents sword really hard first, cutting on a better angle, nor is it the same as receiving the other persons cut with an angled blade to deflect their cut in which I have to make a second movement. Rather it is simply a single cut (big or small) with no perceptible "wind up".

To give an example it looks like what happens if you are on a lake and watch the wake of two motor boats or two waves. The small wave goes towards the larger one, the larger wave simply overcomes the smaller wave as though the smaller did not exist. There is no "resistance" between the two waves. This is the same when we see aikido waza and the uke moves not out of pain compliance/release but because nage has manipulated their center to make them fly through the air with no visible unbalancing effect on nage's body. The larger wave doesn't have better timing, nor does it get out of the way, it simply overwhelms the smaller wave.

The second way is a two step process but the mechanic used is the same. I am going to take some liberty, but it involves sliding your sword against your opponents sword to take the center line as they attack. As you raise your sword, you unbalance your opponent to create the opening. If they try and cut you their body will be offline or twisted over leaving their body completely open and exposed. They feel like they really can't do anything to hit you. This second one can be preformed with arms only as well and works, but if it is powered "internally" there is no question that the internal powered person was in control which makes it easier to award a point in tournaments.

A key point for any motion you preform is the entry itself. You have to take control of the other guy the instant you both make contact with one another. You join and harmonize by making the other person part of yourself to manipulate as fiercely or gently as you desire.

It amazes me that some folks practice Aikido for years with no idea how to punch, kick, throw, or act when they are attacked by a competent martial artist.

William Hazen

I make it a regular habit to have newbs with no striking training to work on punching me correctly in the chest:
1) to get over the fact that -- hey-- we train to hit people here,
2) to hit me properly to the point I am at least mildly uncomfortable with their strike -- so they see it is effective
3) to realize that getting hit is something we all volunteer for by getting on the mat; and
4) that getting hit, even hard, can be handled.

I agree that the aiki of movement is overemphasized -- but it cannot be done away with either. To move or to remain still in proper connection is the same thing -- you have to be like one side of a pair of shears or scissors. Whether we both move or just he moves and I remain still is irrelevant -- the same essential action occurs if I know HOW the motion and the stillness in that connection are exactly the same, even though they may appear different.

I agree that the aiki of movement is overemphasized -- but it cannot be done away with either. To move or to remain still in proper connection is the same thing -- you have to be like one side of a pair of shears or scissors. Whether we both move or just he moves and I remain still is irrelevant -- the same essential action occurs if I know HOW the motion and the stillness in that connection are exactly the same, even though they may appear different.

Any properly-considered dynamic situation can be subjected to accurate static analysis. Many people try to fudge "aiki" situations by intermingling them in sudden dynamic situations while avoiding the logical progression from statics. And many of the people I've felt who do these dynamic demonstrations are very poor at static demonstrations simply because they're masking their real lack of ability with movement and technique. Tohei had it right... if your skills are good, you should be able to demonstrate them statically. Dynamic stuff is harder, so if you can't do the static stuff well, it's obvious that the dynamic stuff is balderdash.

I mentioned this a couple of years ago about being able to demonstrate fairly tough static demonstrations as a pre-requisite to claims about dynamic demonstrations, much of which is dependent upon movement and technique. Technique... even good technique backed by trained strength... is not really the "aiki" that Ueshiba was talking about or that Takeda specialized in.

I'm personally becoming more and more of an observer to how all of this develops in Aiki, but I'll bet that homeostasis prevails and that people go back to what has become the norm in "Aikido". I think Ikeda Sensei recognizes this probability, based on what I here of his current teaching.

If I move into a strike I cut against his structure like one side of the scissors cut against the other, if both are moving. If I don't move, I am just the other side of the scissors staying static and HE is doing the moving -- to the exact same conclusion. Except the scissors in both cases are variably flexible. Ellis said he liked metaphor -- this one has a real mechanical idea underlying both the image and the practice. A moving shear that cuts any structure that does not conform to the role of the scissors and gets in the way. If he departs from the shear connection, he gets cut, simple as that. Ikkyo, ikkajo, if you prefer is an example of this principle.

just some thoughts, David::
-in the same way that a circle is infinite.
-it is a loop. There are many such loops. loops made of bone and muscle, fascia and effort/intent. loops can be closed.
-loops can connect to each other.
-connect one loop to itself
-an example of a loop here<
-connect many such loops
-connect multiple loops together.
-sequencing. cycling. and varying in time. skillfully & artfully done (best case!)
-a curve becomes a portion of a loop
infinite spirals made up of portions of varying loops.
-3D curves and spirals, movements and pressures, flowing always..connecting one to the next
-catching your balance
-and funneling the 'off-balance'-ness back in again.
-that can be linked with the pressure< Mark spoke of.
-think how your tensegrity< structure could fit into this...say, as funnels and guides of the actual lay-of-the-land paths of force conduction

i think (All of this post only my opinion , at this point) hunyuan< strength (6 directions stuff) is about the rapid catching of your own balance again (e.g. even with people pushing)...stabilizing structure and voluntary musculature (inc. dantien region, of course) quickly;;catching your own mass before it goes out of balance; and keeping that (i.e. "felt as:") 'pressure' flowing quickly in the body. and flexing/coordinating/posture-shifting with your breath

-If it makes sense..I thought that stuffs fed into the 'concentrating on yourself' part, as in how HL posted about. that was cool.and also as a partial answer to these< 'queries'.

Any properly-considered dynamic situation can be subjected to accurate static analysis.

A qualified agreement -- but not all dynamics are statically reversible or linear, -- breaking waves don't reverse, and lifting wings stall catastrophically, I say that because the mechanics we are speaking of are directly related -- and so analytically they need dynamic treatment. Holding a dynamic poised at a cusp -- dynamically -- though it seems relatively static to the outside observer, like hovering, or a skater's toe loops, is what I am talking about. Your point about vectors I get-- I find them personally cumbersome, but not wrong -- moments just are easier to intuitively see for me. But mentally manipulating them I have objection to, since to me it is certainly manipulating them -- like a tight corner on a bike, but there is little conscious direction involved in the particulars of adjustment.

Quote:

Mike Sigman wrote:

Tohei had it right... if your skills are good, you should be able to demonstrate them statically. ...Technique... even good technique backed by trained strength... is not really the "aiki" that Ueshiba was talking about or that Takeda specialized in.

I'll tell you what I like to see; people dealing with two hands on one arm and require them to allow the shoulder be driven up before they even respond to it -- that is an interesting thing to watch.